86 F150 300 Build Questions
#1
86 F150 300 Build Questions
Hey guys I started a thread over on the bullnose forum several months back about rebuilding my engine, and well life got in the way and has set me back several months.
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...d-project.html
As of right now I have the following:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/hec-tina/m....=1&_ipg=&_from=
Brand New OXX 300 block
Brand New OXX Connecting Rods
Brand New OXX Crank Shaft
Rubber Ford OEM Oil Pan Gasket
Brand New OXX Valve Cover (Slight Scuff Outside) Super Cheap
Brand New OXX Side Cover (Slight Scuff Outside) Super Cheap
66-237-4 - High Energy? Hydraulic Flat Tappet Camshafts
Comp Cam 260H 66-237-4 Cam
Comp Cam 3224 Timing Set
Comp Cam 7866-12 Push Rods
Comp Cam 903-12 Valve Springs
Comp Cam 601-12 Valve Locks
Comp Cam 502-12 Valve Seals
Sealed Power R-948 Rocker Arms
Sealed Power MR-1847 Rocker Arm Bolts
Offenhauser Dual Port Intake Manifold 6019DP
New 0 Mile EFI Exhaust Manifolds
I purchased a new harmonic balancer last week along with some ARP head bolts and a new cam thrust plate, finishing kit and a walker "Y" pipe.
I still need sever items I was hoping to get recommendations on.
I will start out with asking about the oil pump as it is on my list to get next. Should I go with a high volume pump or standard pump.
I am looking at a SEALED POWER 22441124 for the standard replacement or the SEALED POWER 22441124V for the high volume.
Any reason not to go with the high volume on a 300?
Thanks,
Cody
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...d-project.html
As of right now I have the following:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/hec-tina/m....=1&_ipg=&_from=
Brand New OXX 300 block
Brand New OXX Connecting Rods
Brand New OXX Crank Shaft
Rubber Ford OEM Oil Pan Gasket
Brand New OXX Valve Cover (Slight Scuff Outside) Super Cheap
Brand New OXX Side Cover (Slight Scuff Outside) Super Cheap
66-237-4 - High Energy? Hydraulic Flat Tappet Camshafts
Comp Cam 260H 66-237-4 Cam
Comp Cam 3224 Timing Set
Comp Cam 7866-12 Push Rods
Comp Cam 903-12 Valve Springs
Comp Cam 601-12 Valve Locks
Comp Cam 502-12 Valve Seals
Sealed Power R-948 Rocker Arms
Sealed Power MR-1847 Rocker Arm Bolts
Offenhauser Dual Port Intake Manifold 6019DP
New 0 Mile EFI Exhaust Manifolds
I purchased a new harmonic balancer last week along with some ARP head bolts and a new cam thrust plate, finishing kit and a walker "Y" pipe.
I still need sever items I was hoping to get recommendations on.
I will start out with asking about the oil pump as it is on my list to get next. Should I go with a high volume pump or standard pump.
I am looking at a SEALED POWER 22441124 for the standard replacement or the SEALED POWER 22441124V for the high volume.
Any reason not to go with the high volume on a 300?
Thanks,
Cody
#2
If I were doing your build I'd select the hi-volume pump. Others will warn of excessive loading on the distributor gear, but that has not been problematic for me. I do replace the roll pin in the gear with a piece of .125" diameter welding wire. Never been a problem, even with high lift roller cams.
#3
If I were doing your build I'd select the hi-volume pump. Others will warn of excessive loading on the distributor gear, but that has not been problematic for me. I do replace the roll pin in the gear with a piece of .125" diameter welding wire. Never been a problem, even with high lift roller cams.
Also, which high volume oil pump would you pick:
MELLING M74HV
ENGINETECH EP74HV
SEALED POWER 22441124V
I am not a brands person, so if you have any suggestion, I am all open.
Thanks,
Cody
#5
It has a E7TE-DC head on it currently as the engine I am replacing was a remaned from about 15 years ago.
That leads to another question, should I use the E7TE-DC head which is an EFI head, or should I order a remaned carb head? I am planning on having the machine shop replace the springs, locks and oil seals from my comp cam kit either way even if I go with the remaned head.
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/s...8&postcount=24
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/s...5&postcount=25
That leads to another question, should I use the E7TE-DC head which is an EFI head, or should I order a remaned carb head? I am planning on having the machine shop replace the springs, locks and oil seals from my comp cam kit either way even if I go with the remaned head.
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/s...8&postcount=24
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/s...5&postcount=25
#6
The Carb head will drop the compression ratio 1/2 a point.
Also, only the 1985 and 1986 carb heads use the pedestal mount rockers.
#7
Either way, is there any benefit building a 300 with a carbed head vs an efi head?
This is the one I am looking at.
https://www.oreillyauto.com/detail/b...der+head&pos=1
Would I be better off having the efi head rebuilt at the machine shop?
Trending Topics
#8
You are correct. 85 and 86 heads use bolt down rockers. I used the description of "pedestal mount rockers" which is the same as bolt down.
The advantage of the carb head is that there is better flow under .400" valve lift than the EFI head because the EFI combustion chamber is designed to shroud the valves in order to create swirl.
We recently did a flow bench comparison between the carb and EFI head to verify this.
The larger carb head combustion chamber will still allow you to get in the desired range for a compression ratio that will work with the Comp 260 cam using off the shelf hypereutectic pistons.
What pistons are you going to use?
The advantage of the carb head is that there is better flow under .400" valve lift than the EFI head because the EFI combustion chamber is designed to shroud the valves in order to create swirl.
We recently did a flow bench comparison between the carb and EFI head to verify this.
The larger carb head combustion chamber will still allow you to get in the desired range for a compression ratio that will work with the Comp 260 cam using off the shelf hypereutectic pistons.
What pistons are you going to use?
#9
You are correct. 85 and 86 heads use bolt down rockers. I used the description of "pedestal mount rockers" which is the same as bolt down.
The advantage of the carb head is that there is better flow under .400" valve lift than the EFI head because the EFI combustion chamber is designed to shroud the valves in order to create swirl.
We recently did a flow bench comparison between the carb and EFI head to verify this.
The larger carb head combustion chamber will still allow you to get in the desired range for a compression ratio that will work with the Comp 260 cam using off the shelf hypereutectic pistons.
What pistons are you going to use?
The advantage of the carb head is that there is better flow under .400" valve lift than the EFI head because the EFI combustion chamber is designed to shroud the valves in order to create swirl.
We recently did a flow bench comparison between the carb and EFI head to verify this.
The larger carb head combustion chamber will still allow you to get in the desired range for a compression ratio that will work with the Comp 260 cam using off the shelf hypereutectic pistons.
What pistons are you going to use?
As far as the pistons, do you have a good recommendation? I have not really dived into looking at them yet honestly. I know I will probably get them from summit as I received a $20 off coupon code when I bought the Offenhauser Dual Port Intake Manifold.
#10
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/u...view/make/ford
These have the highest compression height (1.776") and the lowest dish volume.
You will have around a 8.4 compression ratio which will give you a 7.2 dynamic compression ratio if the cam is installed with the intake lobe center at 106 degree ATDC as specified.
This will allow the use of low octane pump gas without detonation.
I would have recommended a cam with a lot more advertised duration so the compression ratio could be a lot higher.
These have the highest compression height (1.776") and the lowest dish volume.
You will have around a 8.4 compression ratio which will give you a 7.2 dynamic compression ratio if the cam is installed with the intake lobe center at 106 degree ATDC as specified.
This will allow the use of low octane pump gas without detonation.
I would have recommended a cam with a lot more advertised duration so the compression ratio could be a lot higher.
#11
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/u...view/make/ford
These have the highest compression height (1.776") and the lowest dish volume.
You will have around a 8.4 compression ratio which will give you a 7.2 dynamic compression ratio if the cam is installed with the intake lobe center at 106 degree ATDC as specified.
This will allow the use of low octane pump gas without detonation.
I would have recommended a cam with a lot more advertised duration so the compression ratio could be a lot higher.
These have the highest compression height (1.776") and the lowest dish volume.
You will have around a 8.4 compression ratio which will give you a 7.2 dynamic compression ratio if the cam is installed with the intake lobe center at 106 degree ATDC as specified.
This will allow the use of low octane pump gas without detonation.
I would have recommended a cam with a lot more advertised duration so the compression ratio could be a lot higher.
#12
The stock cam is a 268.
I would have gone with the Comp 268 only because the valve lift is below .500"
The valve length on the 1985 and later bolt down rocker heads is 4.750" and the valve retainer will run into the valve guide tower if the lift is over .500"
The early heads have a 4.810" long valve and will allow cams with more valve lift.
If the early longer valves are used then I would use a cam from another company that has more valve lift.
The last engine I assembled used a CNC ported 85 head with 4.910" SBC valves, with 2.02" intake valves and 1.6" exhaust.
The cam had 232 degrees of .050" duration and 288 advertised .534" valve lift with BBC roller rockers. 9.75 compression ratio.
4 barrel intake with a quick fuel 650 carb and a set of headers.
There is still a ton of torque at 2000 rpm and 70 mph only requires a slight touch on the gas pedal.
The owner reports 18 mpg at 70 mph from Spokane WA to Boise ID in a 77 2wd pickup.
I would have gone with the Comp 268 only because the valve lift is below .500"
The valve length on the 1985 and later bolt down rocker heads is 4.750" and the valve retainer will run into the valve guide tower if the lift is over .500"
The early heads have a 4.810" long valve and will allow cams with more valve lift.
If the early longer valves are used then I would use a cam from another company that has more valve lift.
The last engine I assembled used a CNC ported 85 head with 4.910" SBC valves, with 2.02" intake valves and 1.6" exhaust.
The cam had 232 degrees of .050" duration and 288 advertised .534" valve lift with BBC roller rockers. 9.75 compression ratio.
4 barrel intake with a quick fuel 650 carb and a set of headers.
There is still a ton of torque at 2000 rpm and 70 mph only requires a slight touch on the gas pedal.
The owner reports 18 mpg at 70 mph from Spokane WA to Boise ID in a 77 2wd pickup.
#13
The stock cam is a 268.
I would have gone with the Comp 268 only because the valve lift is below .500"
The valve length on the 1985 and later bolt down rocker heads is 4.750" and the valve retainer will run into the valve guide tower if the lift is over .500"
The early heads have a 4.810" long valve and will allow cams with more valve lift.
If the early longer valves are used then I would use a cam from another company that has more valve lift.
The last engine I assembled used a CNC ported 85 head with 4.910" SBC valves, with 2.02" intake valves and 1.6" exhaust.
The cam had 232 degrees of .050" duration and 288 advertised .534" valve lift with BBC roller rockers. 9.75 compression ratio.
4 barrel intake with a quick fuel 650 carb and a set of headers.
There is still a ton of torque at 2000 rpm and 70 mph only requires a slight touch on the gas pedal.
The owner reports 18 mpg at 70 mph from Spokane WA to Boise ID in a 77 2wd pickup.
I would have gone with the Comp 268 only because the valve lift is below .500"
The valve length on the 1985 and later bolt down rocker heads is 4.750" and the valve retainer will run into the valve guide tower if the lift is over .500"
The early heads have a 4.810" long valve and will allow cams with more valve lift.
If the early longer valves are used then I would use a cam from another company that has more valve lift.
The last engine I assembled used a CNC ported 85 head with 4.910" SBC valves, with 2.02" intake valves and 1.6" exhaust.
The cam had 232 degrees of .050" duration and 288 advertised .534" valve lift with BBC roller rockers. 9.75 compression ratio.
4 barrel intake with a quick fuel 650 carb and a set of headers.
There is still a ton of torque at 2000 rpm and 70 mph only requires a slight touch on the gas pedal.
The owner reports 18 mpg at 70 mph from Spokane WA to Boise ID in a 77 2wd pickup.
#14
The stock cam is a 268.
I would have gone with the Comp 268 only because the valve lift is below .500"
The valve length on the 1985 and later bolt down rocker heads is 4.750" and the valve retainer will run into the valve guide tower if the lift is over .500"
The early heads have a 4.810" long valve and will allow cams with more valve lift.
I would have gone with the Comp 268 only because the valve lift is below .500"
The valve length on the 1985 and later bolt down rocker heads is 4.750" and the valve retainer will run into the valve guide tower if the lift is over .500"
The early heads have a 4.810" long valve and will allow cams with more valve lift.
#15
Next question, which head gasket?
FEL-PRO 8168PT (PermaTorque)
or
FEL-PRO 525SD (PermaTorque Severe Duty)
https://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog/...ket+/+set,5412
FEL-PRO 8168PT (PermaTorque)
or
FEL-PRO 525SD (PermaTorque Severe Duty)
https://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog/...ket+/+set,5412